> > GR> RAID is not backup. RAID adds disk redundancy, no more.
> >
> > Raid can also do mirroring... or any combination of a lot of things,
> > depending on the number of disks, the way you partition etc...
>
> That has nothing to do with backup though. It's 100% about disk redundancy,
> and t
> GR> RAID is not backup. RAID adds disk redundancy, no more.
>
> Raid can also do mirroring... or any combination of a lot of things,
> depending on the number of disks, the way you partition etc...
That has nothing to do with backup though. It's 100% about disk redundancy,
and that is all RAI
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, David wrote:
> The moral of this story is: backup with RAID is better than RAID without
> backup..
RAID is not backup. RAID adds disk redundancy, no more.
-=-=-==-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Graeme Robinson - Graenet consulting
www.graenet.com - internet solutions
-=-=-=-=-
On 13 Feb 2003, Jon Biddell wrote:
> Bit expensive - check the prices on www.programmersparadise.com.au - I
> think that size is about $153.
>
> Jon
>
> > OK so I am getting a new harddrive (as a second HD) from my local PC store, and
> > am thinking of a 40gb (or 60gb) Seagate 7200rpm 3y for $179
Adam W wrote:
>
> Then again - you may find your tapes are buggered and cant retrieve any
> data off that either!
Shhez People! It is a standard part of admin work to regularly test your
backup is working. You should run a restore at least monthly.
--
Terry Collins {:-)}}} email: terryc at
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:14:19AM +1100, Adam W wrote:
>
> > > The moral of this story is: backup with RAID is better than RAID
> > > without backup.
> >
> > ITYM backup *without* RAID is better than RAID without backup.
>
> Although, it does protect you from a blown motor in one of the drives
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Friday 14 Feb 2003 10:09 am, John Clarke wrote:
> ITYM backup *without* RAID is better than RAID without backup.
Agreed. And backup *with* RAID'ed SCSI disks is better still.
Jon, I am *so* thankful for that Netstrada of yours!
cheers,
Chris
- --
Chri
> > The moral of this story is: backup with RAID is better than RAID
> > without backup.
>
> ITYM backup *without* RAID is better than RAID without backup.
Although, it does protect you from a blown motor in one of the drives -
without losing a day/week/months data.
Then again - you may find you
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:24:00PM +1100, David wrote:
> I went to the trouble of installing a hardware RAID card (anyone want to
> buy it?). When the data on one drive was corrupted by a drive fault, the
> other drive dutifully mirrored it so I had TWO corrupted sets of data.
Software RAID will
At 16:54 13/02/2003, David wrote:
yes.. but what about reliability? is there a difference? I need two new
drives, but I much prefer reliability to size (I'm told that size isn't
everything ;-)
David
I've got two of those Seagate drives (60GB). They're a little slower than,
say, the newest
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Carl G Lewis wrote:
> On Thursday 13 February 2003 16:54, David wrote:
> > yes.. but what about reliability? is there a difference? I need two new
> > drives, but I much prefer reliability to size (I'm told that size isn't
> > everything ;-)
>
> Moral of the story:
> ASSUME
On Thursday 13 February 2003 16:54, David wrote:
> yes.. but what about reliability? is there a difference? I need two new
> drives, but I much prefer reliability to size (I'm told that size isn't
> everything ;-)
Every time I go see the friendly chinese guy down at my local pc shop for a
new dri
February 2003 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SLUG] Hard Drives
>
> On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 14:32, Andrewd wrote:
> > OK so I am getting a new harddrive (as a second HD) from my local PC
> store, and
> > am thinking of a 40gb (or 60gb) Seag
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2003 3:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Hard Drives
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 14:32, Andrewd wrote:
> OK so I am getting a new harddrive (as a second HD) from my local PC
store, and
> am thinking of a 40gb (o
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 14:32, Andrewd wrote:
> OK so I am getting a new harddrive (as a second HD) from my local PC store, and
> am thinking of a 40gb (or 60gb) Seagate 7200rpm 3y for $179.00, what do people
> think, and what are their experiences.
I got an 80Gb the other day, for $209 - without sh
Bit expensive - check the prices on www.programmersparadise.com.au - I
think that size is about $153.
Jon
> OK so I am getting a new harddrive (as a second HD) from my local PC store, and
> am thinking of a 40gb (or 60gb) Seagate 7200rpm 3y for $179.00, what do people
> think, and what are their
> 1)The drive bays are of the 'Lazer" brand, whilst the box
> says they are hot
> swappable, I have some reservations about doing this, for
> fear of spiking the drive and damaging it or the others on
> the machine. I know that one has to be present in the machine
> for the bios to detect t
> 1)The drive bays are of the 'Lazer" brand, whilst the box
> says they are hot
> swappable, I have some reservations about doing this, for
> fear of spiking the drive and damaging it or the others on
> the machine. I know that one has to be present in the machine
> for the bios to detect t
18 matches
Mail list logo
